SHAMBHOO JI SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of an order passed by respondent No. 1 directing the reversion of the appellant from the Post of Panchayat Inspector to the post of a clerk to the Collectorate.

(2.) The facts on the basis of which the appellant came up to this Court ate not disputed. The appellant was holding a permanent post is a clerk in the Collectorate. Then a selection took place for appointment to the post of Panchayat Inspector and the appellant was selected for that post and was appointed to it on the 10th June, 1949. While he was holding this post of Panchayat Inspector, the appellant wanted to improve his educational qualifications and consequently with the permission of the District Magistrate of Orai, where he was posted, he joined B.A, Classes in a college On the 12th December, 1958 respondent No. 2 served on the appellant a charge-sheet asking him to explain why he should not be properly punished because he had drawn travelling allowances on dates when he was actually present in the college according to the college attendance register. The appellant submitted his explanation through the District Magistrate and denied the charges. His case was that he had correctly drawn the travelling allowances because he had actually performed the journeys and that he had been wrongly marked as present in the College either on the basis of proxy or because there was mistaken marking of attendance. Subsequent to this explanation, respondent No. 2 passed the order dated the 19th May, 1954, removing him from the post of Panchayat Inspector. The appellant then filed an appeal to the State Government.

(3.) The State Government, respondent No. 1, by an order dated the 12th March, 1956, communicated their decision on the appeal of the appellant. The decision was that the order of removal passed by the Joint Director, Panchayat Raj Department, U.P, was ultra virtes as the appellant was holding a lien on a permanent post in the Collectorate while he was working against a temporary post of Panchayat Inspector. Consequently, the respondent No. 1 modified the order of respondent No. 2. The order made was that the order of removal be modified into that of reversion. This was the order which was challenged by the writ petition before the learned Single Judge on the ground that this order amounted to reduction in rank and it had been made without complying with the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution. Before the learned single Judge there was no controversy that the opportunity to show cause required by Article 311 of the Constitution had not been given to the appellant; but the contention was that no such opportunity need have been given because the order made against the appellant did not amount to a punishment of any of the types mentioned in Article 311. It was urged that the appellant had been only reverted to his permanent post from a post which he was holding temporarily so that the order did not entail any loss of emoluments or privileges in respect of which a right might have become vested in the appellant. It was also urged that this order of reversion did not visit the appellant with any penal consequences such as forfeiture of his pay or allowances or the loss of his seniority in his substantive post or stoppage or postponement of his future chances of promotion. These submissions made on behalf of the respondents were accepted by the learned Single Judge and consequently the writ petition was dismissed.